protecting the poorest countries: role of the multilateral...
TRANSCRIPT
July 7, 2020
- 1 -
Protecting the Poorest Countries: Role of the Multilateral Development Banks
in Times of Crisis
Explanatory Note
I. Introduction
1. This Explanatory Note is a follow up to the joint Multilateral Development Bank
(MDB) note “Protecting the Poorest Countries: Role of the Multilateral Development Banks in
times of Crisis” (“the joint MDB note”)1 and is being circulated at the request of Board
members to provide further details on the obstacles to suspending debt repayments to
IDA/IBRD and the potential negative impact on financial sustainability. The explanatory note
follows the structure of the previous MDB joint note and explains how the World Bank provides
attractive and increased net flows to help countries respond to the COVID-19 crisis. Finally, the
note explores other approaches that could be considered.
2. The paper is organized as follows: Section II describes the MDBs’ commitment, as
laid out in the MDB joint note, to do more. Specifically, it sets out (a) the additional financing
that the World Bank is looking to provide and (b) the potential negative ramifications from
suspending debt repayments to MDBs. Section III outlines key factors examined including (a) how
MDBs provide net flows to member countries with specific details for IDA and IBRD, (b) potential
ratings impact on MDBs like IDA and IBRD that rely on triple-A ratings to raise resources for
member countries, and (c) potential impact on costs and capacity to lend. Section IV discusses
other financing approaches to IDA that are being explored, including (a) donors financing a
dedicated Trust Fund that would allocate resources to IDA countries to meet portions of their debt
repayment obligations to IDA, and b) possible options that could optimize IDA’s temporary capital
headroom to provide short-term financing for urgent needs for social, health, or economic spending
in a way that complements the transparency agenda of the Sustainable Development Finance
Policy. To the extent that major new resources become available through one or both of these
approaches, the beneficiaries would have more fiscal space for expenditures needed to respond to
COVID-19 impacts, adding new avenues and protections alongside the financial and business
models of IDA and IBRD. Section V sets out the conclusions of the note.
II. Commitment to do more
3. The coronavirus (COVID-19) crisis is threatening lives, livelihoods, and entire
economies and the World Bank and other Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) are
stepping up their financing in response. IDA countries are particularly vulnerable to the crisis
and have limited policy buffers to respond. Rapidly expanding the development resources
available to IDA countries is one of the priorities in the immediate response to the crisis.
4. Together with other MDBs, the World Bank is ensuring that countries have timely
and significantly positive financial inflows during this crisis to augment fiscal resources
available without increasing debt vulnerabilities. The ability to provide highly concessional and
1 The joint MDB note was produced in response to shareholders’ call for MDBs to further explore ways to
participate in DSSI.
July 7, 2020
- 2 -
positive net flows, and scale them up at a time of crisis when other lenders withdraw, has been a
core strength of the World Bank since its establishment. With respect to the poorest countries, IDA
is able not only to boost flows quickly, but also to calibrate its terms to take into account a country’s
debt situation. Finally, all World Bank financing also comes with sound analytical and policy
advice, as well as the technical assistance that countries need to mitigate the impact of the crisis.
“Providing Additional Financing”
5. During crises, IDA countries need financial assistance – namely, steady concessional
positive net flows – from creditors. The extent of positive net flows has been considerably
reinforced by strong replenishments combined with the new IDA financial model. For example,
higher flows to respond to COVID-19 in IDA countries in FY21 mean that for every $1 in debt
service, IDA and IBRD would provide $11 in new commitments to IDA eligible countries.2 In
terms of disbursements, the World Bank provides multiples of debt service across all categories of
countries (Figure 2). In addition, compared to other creditors, the World Bank’s financing flows
tend to be more stable (Figure 1).
6. WBG financing usually carries the best financial terms from the borrowing country’s
perspective, and IDA’s already highly concessional financing builds debt relief into its
assistance. The bulk of IDA resources are provided on highly concessional terms with no interest
and with long grace periods and maturities. Since payments are lower and are spread over longer
periods of time, IDA credits are easier for borrowers to service. IDA countries will receive close
to $9.8 billion in new IDA grants in FY21 alone. More than half (38 of 70) of IDA19 active
countries already receive all, or half, of their IDA resources on grant terms, which carry no
payments at all. These significant amounts of grants are targeted to the low-income countries at
higher risk of debt distress. The grant share in IDA has been increasing over time in response to
increased debt vulnerabilities in client countries, since the Grant Allocation Framework (based on
the joint IMF-WB Debt Sustainability Assessment) uses a forward-looking methodology (Figure
3). For countries that borrow on regular IDA terms, the 6-year grace period means that debt service
on new borrowing to address the COVID-19 crisis will not commence until the country has had a
chance to recover.
7. Similarly, IBRD’s loan pricing is significantly lower and tenors longer than
commercial creditors.3 Furthermore, recent IDA graduates, Blend countries, Small States, and
countries experiencing fragility, conflict and violence (FCV) receive IBRD’s lowest pricing and
are exempt from the pricing increases that went into effect following the 2018 WBG Capital
Package.
2 Of these IDA-eligible countries, 15 are Blend countries also eligible to receive IBRD financing. 3 In addition, IBRD’s lending rate has decreased substantially during the COVID-19 crisis due to a sharp decline
in market interest rates. IBRD lending rates are comprised of a market reference rate plus lending spreads that are
differentiated by maturity, income level, and country-specific considerations. Since the beginning of 2020,
IBRD’s reference market rate, 6-month LIBOR, has fallen by over 100 basis points.
July 7, 2020
- 3 -
Figure 1. Net Flows and Net Transfers to IDA Eligible Countries ($ Billion)
Note: Net flows are defined as the balance between gross disbursements and repayments and pre-payments. Net transfers equal
net flows minus interest and service fees. Other creditors include commercial and bilateral creditors.
8. The attractiveness of IDA and IBRD terms – combined with the impact of the debt
relief from the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative and Multilateral Debt
Relief Initiative (MDRI) of the 2000s – translates into very low debt service amounts in IDA
countries. In FY21, debt service to IDA and IBRD is expected to be $3.8 billion for all IDA
countries. This includes $1.1 billion in debt service from IDA-only countries, $0.7 billion from
fragile and conflict-affected states (FCS), $63 million from Small States and $1.7 billion from
Blend countries. As illustrated in Annex 1, debt service is low when compared to commitment
levels for all categories of countries: in the majority of countries, commitments are ten times higher
than debt service.
9. The attractiveness of IDA and IBRD terms relies in part on the ability to access capital
markets to secure the additional financing that will be needed for the scaled-up crisis
response. In FY20 alone, IBRD raised $75 billion on capital markets. These funds are raised
through multiple bonds issuances throughout the year in diverse markets, minimizing the costs to
IBRD, and the low financing costs are passed on to borrowers. IBRD has been able to maintain
this scale of issuance despite the financial turbulence since the crisis hit global markets in March
2020. IDA borrows in markets at lower volumes than IBRD as it gradually rolls out its funding
program that reached $5 billion in FY20 and is expected to significantly increase next year.
Maintaining financial access at competitive rates is vital for both institutions to be able to deliver
on their commitments to increase lending to help clients respond to the crisis.
10. IDA and IBRD expect to commit low-cost financing of $44 billion in FY21 for ID19
eligible countries, including close to $10 billion in grants. This contrasts with the less than $4
billion in debt service that is due from these countries during the same period. This is a major
contribution toward the overall global objective of ensuring that IDA countries have access to
affordable net flows that add to their fiscal space and boost their ability to respond to the crisis
without adding to debt vulnerabilities. Section IV provides possible options to add further to these
additional flows through IDA.
(2)
-
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
200
02
00
12
00
22
00
32
00
42
00
52
00
62
00
72
00
82
00
92
01
02
01
12
01
22
01
32
01
42
01
52
01
62
01
72
01
82
01
9
IDA and IBRD
Net Flows
Net Transfers
(15)
(10)
(5)
-
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
200
0
200
1
200
2
200
3
200
4
200
5
200
6
200
7
200
8
200
9
201
0
201
1
201
2
201
3
201
4
201
5
201
6
201
7
201
8
Other creditors
Net financial flow
Net transfer
July 7, 2020
- 4 -
11. Because of its terms – low interest rates, long grace periods, and in many cases
outright grants – the World Bank’s transfers to client countries entail significant
concessionality and PV reduction. This is in contrast with debt service suspension, which is
meant to be PV-neutral, with the relatively short repayment period providing liquidity relief for a
limited period of time.
“Participating in the Debt Payment Suspension”
12. Debt service suspension by MDBs would likely reduce net funding to IDA countries
by undermining the attractiveness of MDB debt, including IDA debt, and increasing IDA
and IBRD’s funding costs significantly. Given that IDA and IBRD have slim margins to cover
their administrative costs, if their funding costs increase, ultimately these costs must be passed to
the borrowing countries. The MDBs collectively issue between $200 billion and $250 billion per
year, with more than $1 trillion in bonds outstanding. IBRD has more than $200 billion in bonds
outstanding and in FY20 issued approximately $75 billion. IDA annual issuance is also increasing
from $5 billion in FY20 to more than double that over the next few years. Even a small increase
in funding costs therefore drains large volumes of resources, impacting all clients. The effect of
such an increase in funding costs on IDA would also rise over time, hitting IDA’s net income and
therefore lending volumes. In sum, the long-term costs of even a small increase in cost of funding
would vastly outweigh the short-term benefits of debt service suspension (IDA would suspend less
than $4 billion in total nominal debt service; at zero net present value).
13. The central plank of the main MDBs’ low funding costs, particularly those of IBRD
and IDA, is their triple-A rating, which in turn depends on their preferred creditor treatment
(PCT). MDBs’ business model is to lend as preferred creditors to high-risk clients at very low
interest rates (Figure 4). For the model to be sustainable, these low interest rates have to cover
MDBs’ funding costs in capital markets plus their administrative costs; they could not cover the
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
WB Bilaterals Commercial
US
$
Blend Gap
IDA-only FCS
Small States
Figure 2. Disbursements (IDA and IBRD)
per unit of total debt service by different
creditor groups, 2018 ($)
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
IDA16 IDA17 IDA18 IDA19*
Sh
are
of
gra
nt,
%
bil
lion
US
$
Credit
Grant
Share of grants (%)
Figure 3. Share of IDA Financing
($ billion)
Note: IDA18 numbers are as of end April 20; IDA19
figures are projections.
July 7, 2020
- 5 -
risk – and funding costs – of an MDB if it were a less preferred creditor. It is therefore vital that
any debt service suspension is not perceived by investors in IDA or IBRD bonds, or by the credit
rating agencies that rate those bonds, as undermining this financial and operational model in any
way. The “Ratings Impact” section below provides an assessment of potential rating agency views.
Figure 4. The Multilateral Development Bank Model
III. Key Factors Examined
14. In evaluating the best way to support countries, the World Bank and other MDBs have paid
careful attention to the following key factors:
“Net Flows to Member Countries”
15. In addition to Section II above, three additional points are important to emphasize:
a. Additional financing provided through frontloading alone is greater than debt service to
IDA-eligible countries. IDA is planning to provide financing of up to $41 billion for FY21,
almost 50 percent more than the expected annual financing in IDA19. This substantially
increased level of financing will be made available by frontloading IDA19 resources (43
percent of IDA19) and through cancellations/restructuring (see Figure 5). Similarly, for
IBRD, the 2018 Capital Package strengthens IBRD’s financing capacity significantly,
albeit with the capital subscription process still in its early stages. IBRD expects to provide
$40-41 billion of financing in FY21, including via utilization of the crisis buffer (proposed
at $10 billion for FY21, subject to Board approval) and $5-6 billion from the repurposing
of undisbursed balances, relative to $28 billion in FY20.
b. World Bank positive net flows and net transfers will be provided both in aggregate and to
all categories of countries. The performance-based allocations (PBA) of more than half of
IDA active countries are expected to be 10 times or more than their estimated debt service
in FY21. Less than 20 percent of countries will receive financing between 1 and 5 times
their debt service. Note that the PBA-based allocation only accounts for two-thirds of FY21
indicative financing, excluding the FCV top-up and IDA windows (Figure 6 and Annex 1).
July 7, 2020
- 6 -
If IDA windows are included, it is estimated that more than two-thirds of countries will
likely access new financing more than 10 times their debt service.
c. Annual disbursements for IDA-eligible countries are surging, with increasing
commitments dwarfing debt service. Annual average disbursements for IDA eligible
countries in the first two years of IDA18 reached $15.9 billion, a 49 percent increase from
the average over IDA16 and IDA17. IDA disbursements are projected to rise further and
exceed $24 billion in FY21 due to the frontloading of IDA19, 2.5 times higher than the
annual average over IDA16-17. In contrast, IDA-eligible countries’ debt service to IDA
has historically been flatter, well below the level of gross disbursements, given the
concessional nature of IDA financing. IDA countries’ debt service is very low due to long
grace periods, long repayment periods, a preemptive grant allocation system, and debt
reduction in the past from HIPC and MDRI. Furthermore, debt service to IDA is more
concentrated from Blend/GAP countries than poorer IDA-only countries. As mentioned
above, fully half of active IDA countries already receive all, or half of their IDA resources
on grant terms, which carry no payments at all. Thus, IDA-only countries, which comprise
63 percent of active IDA countries, will account for only one-third of IDA debt service in
FY21, while Blend/Gap countries account for two-thirds of IDA debt service (Figure 7).
-
5
10
15
20
25
30
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
20
21
20
22
US$
bln
Gross Disbursements
Debt Service
with
frontloading
without
frontloading
13
19
28
11
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0
5
10
1X to5x 5x to 10x 10x to 50x more than
50x
Nu
mb
er o
f co
un
trie
s
US
$ b
illi
on
s
Grant Credit
Debt service # countries
27
41
0
10
20
30
40
50
Pre-frontloading Post-frontloading
US
$ b
illi
on
IDA Windows Country envelope
Cancellations Total
Figure 5. Indicative FY21 IDA
Potential Delivery
Note: Indicative IDA projections assuming 43% of IDA19 resources to be committed in FY21 plus
cancellations/recommitments.
Figure 6. IDA PBA Allocations vs.
Debt Service
Note: Based on indicative FY21 Country Allocations
(excluding FCV envelope). Note that IDA windows are not included.
July 7, 2020
- 7 -
“Ratings Impact”
16. Without their very strong triple-A ratings, MDBs such as IBRD and IDA could not
sustain their business model of borrowing cheaply and lending to clients that would represent
much higher risk to other, non-preferred creditors. Rating agencies – and the bond investors
they inform – assess MDBs’ payment track record, risk management, governance, and other
aspects to ensure that MDBs are able to deliver on their promise to transform their client
relationships of trusted advisor, countercyclical financier, and lender of last resort into the low
default rates and high recovery rates of a strongly preferred creditor.
17. It should be noted that rating methodologies differ by agency, are hard to predict,
and change significantly over time. All three main agencies (S&P, Moody’s, and Fitch) have
altered their approaches in the past three years. All three methodologies are different. All contain
significant subjective and discretionary elements. And all will continue to be subject to regular
revision. To give two relevant examples: (1) S&P reserve a one-notch discretionary adjustment for
their “holistic approach” at the end of their rating criteria; (2) Moody’s rating scorecard delivers a
final “Indicated Rating Range” that covers three ratings notches, leaving the final Moody’s rating
uncertain within this range. It is therefore impossible for MDB management to predict with
certainty rating agency reactions to changes in MDBs’ governance or external environment, or to
determine whether a particular action will lead to a specific rating impact.
18. Debt service suspension could potentially have a negative impact on assessments of
MDB strengths. Figures 8 and 9 show schematic illustrations of the ratings assessment approaches
of S&P and Moody’s. For S&P, there are at least five points where a debt service suspension could
change the assessment. For example, reduced PCT (as assessed by S&P) would decrease the main
measure of Capital Adequacy (Risk-Adjusted Capital) in the Financial Risk Profile (point 3). But
PCT also enters S&P’s assessment of Policy Importance under Enterprise Risk Profile (point 1).
For Moody’s, there are at least three points where debt service suspension could change the
assessment. Moody’s attaches less weight to PCT than S&P. But in addition to PCT deterioration,
Figure 7. IDA Gross Disbursements and Debt Service to IDA-eligible countries, $ billion
Actual 2012-2019 and projected 2020-2022 (illustrative)
-
5
10
15
20
25
30
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
20
21
20
22
US$
bln
Gross Disbursements
Debt Service
with
frontloading
without
frontloading
July 7, 2020
- 8 -
debt service suspension would hit Asset Quality under Capital Adequacy (point 1). A debt service
suspension could also affect the Quality of Management adjustment factor (point 3), for example
if it were interpreted as non-observance of long-standing governance practice and/or a practice
referred to in financial statements.
19. Two out of the three rating agencies have emphasized that debt service suspension
could exert downward rating pressure. S&P Global, on June 9, 2020 issued two publications
that made clear their concerns over multilateral participation in debt relief. S&P stated, “If MLIs
grant a debt moratorium to the poorest sovereigns as agreed among G-20 bilateral creditors, their
PCT status might weaken and ultimately weigh on our ratings, unless most of the associated losses
are compensated.” 4 S&P further stated, “We don't believe MLIs will consider these debt relief
packages, given that many already support their low-income members through a combination of
grant and concessional financing. Equally important is the consideration of preferred creditor that
could be put into question should they participate in these packages.” 5 They also issued an earlier
publication making similar points.6 S&P’s analysis also underscores other sources of pressure than
PCT, including deterioration in portfolio credit quality in the form of sovereign downgrades,
noting that even under their least severe stress scenario, IBRD’s Risk-Adjusted Capital ratio could
decline below the threshold of their strongest sub-rating category.7 IDA has a more complex
investor narrative. Under an S&P scenario of debt relief in the absence of robust compensation,
S&P’s assessment of IDA’s PCT fell to “weak.” .8 Fitch has also made recent statements that debt
service suspension would be credit negative for MDBs.9
20. The recent statement from Moody’s, that the rating agency would not interpret a
suspension of debt repayments from borrowers to IDA/IBRD as reducing PCT, needs to be
understood with careful attention to the above context.10 While they may not adjust the PCT
factor, non-payments would still affect asset quality and performance indicators and could affect
ratings through those channels (Figure 9). Most fundamentally, in the absence of private-sector
participation in DSSI, over time, it would be challenging for rating agencies to interpret MDB
participation as consistent with PCT given that private creditors would continue to be paid ahead
of supposedly “more preferred” multilateral creditors.11
4 S&P Global Ratings, “Can Multilateral Lenders' Capital Bases Hold Up Against COVID-19?” June 9, 2020. 5 S&P Global Ratings, “How Multilateral Lending Institutions Are Responding To The COVID-19 Pandemic,”
June 9, 2020. 6 S&P Global Ratings, “Credit FAQ: COVID-19 And Implications Of Temporary Debt Moratoriums For Rated
African Sovereigns,” April 29, 2020. 7 “FONPLATA and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) are the only entities […]
for which the stresses in scenario 1 could bring our capitalization metric down to a level that could qualify for
[…] a lower capital assessment.” S&P Global Ratings, “Can Multilateral Lenders' Capital Bases Hold Up Against
COVID-19?” June 9, 2020. 8 S&P are clear that uncompensated debt relief would likely affect ratings: “Hence, a broad-based debt standstill
leading to multiple sovereigns incurring arrears or receiving debt write-downs would likely have negative rating
implications for MLIs unless most of the losses were compensated.” Ibid. 9 Fitch Ratings: “Suspension of sovereign debt payments owed to multilateral development banks (MDBs) would
be negative for MDB ratings unless they were fully compensated by their shareholders,” April 22, 2020. 10 Moody’s, “FAQ on MDB credit quality in the context of the coronavirus outbreak”, May 11, 2020. 11 “Support by private sector firms is voluntary and will not affect the enforceability of obligations owed to such
providers of finance by beneficiary countries.” Institute of International Finance, Terms of Reference for
July 7, 2020
- 9 -
Figure 8. S&P Supranational Rating Criteria with Potential Impact Points of Debt Service
Suspension
Figure 9. Moody’s Rating Scorecard with Potential Impact Points of Debt Service
Suspension
Voluntary Private Sector Participation in the G20/Paris Club Debt Service Suspension Initiative (“DSSI”), May
28, 2020.
Capital Adequacy• Leverage (Aaa)• Asset credit quality* (Baa)• Asset performance (A2)
Funding and Liquidity• Liquid assets (Aaa)• Quality of financing (Aaa)
Preliminary IntrinsicFinancial Strength (Aa2)
Other adjustment factors• Operating environment• Quality of management (+1)
Adjusted IntrinsicFinancial strength (Aa1)
Strength of support (Baa1, +2)• Ability to support (Aa3)• Callable capital/debt (Ca)• Non-contractual support
Indicated Rating Range{Aaa – Aa2}
1
2
3
* Includes up to one-notch PCS uplift
Source: Moody’s Investors Service, “Multilateral Development Banks and Other Supranational Entities”, January 2019.
Policy Importance• Role• Relationship with shareholders• PCT
Governance and Mgmt Expertise• Governance• Management Expertise
Enterprise Risk Profile
Capital Adequacy• RAC Ratio• Risk Position
Funding and Liquidity• Funding• Liquidity
Financial Risk Profile
SACPExtraordinary shareholder support• Callable capital• Group rating methodology
Indicative ICR
Holistic approach
Final ICR
1
2
3
4
5
Source: S&P Global Ratings, “Supranationals – Special Edition”, October 2019.
July 7, 2020
- 10 -
“MDB Funding Sources, Costs And The Impact On Capacity To Lend”
21. Our final assessment is that, although uncertain, the effect of debt service suspension
that was not fully compensated up front by shareholders (e.g., as in the case of the HIPC
Initiative) would be to increase MDB funding costs in financial markets. This assessment is
based on the multiple ways in which debt service suspension could, over the longer term, affect
rating agency assessments and market perception, along with or even without rating erosion. This
assessment is also based on the characteristics of MDB funding sources in capital markets and our
long track record of experience in these markets. While all the uncertainties make it impossible to
estimate with confidence the likely impact on funding costs, even minor effects would exert a
significant drain on income, retained earnings, and thus capital over time.
IV. Other Approaches
22. This last section explores two approaches that would respond to current financial
challenges.
A. Trust Fund Approach to finance MDB Debt Repayments
23. IDA donors could create a new Debt Service Relief Multi-Donor Trust Fund (MDTF),
and the funds raised would be used to make debt service payments for the benefit of IDA
countries freeing up their resources and providing additional liquidity to address immediate
needs arising from the crisis.12 The trust fund could be similar to the IMF’s Catastrophe
Containment and Relief Trust (CCRT), established in 2015, to provide a conduit for donor grants
to poor and vulnerable members to cover IMF debt obligations.13 A Debt Service Relief MDTF at
the WB would need to have similar major donors as the CCRT and could provide grants to eligible
countries to cover their WB debt obligations. Under this approach, donors could pledge grant
contributions to a MDTF and set up a governance system for allocating the grants. Other variants
of this approach could also be possible.
24. It should be noted, however, that such an MDTF would be allocating its support based
on the past borrowing of current IDA countries, not country programs or the current IDA19
allocations. Further, unlike direct contributions to IDA, contributions to TFs cannot be leveraged,
hence this wouldn’t be the financially most optimal use of additional resources in today’s
financially constrained environment. Since direct contributions to IDA can leverage significantly
larger lending volumes, they would be a more efficient way to support the objective of boosting
net flows (Figure 10). With IDA’s financial model, simulations show that a $4 billion additional
12 The volume of funding needed is significant. The estimated financing needs for FY21, if covering the same 27
countries that the IMF has already provided relief to, would be $782.4 million. Two additional countries are
eligible for IMF debt relief suspension (Burundi and Tanzania): including them, the equivalent financing need for
FY21 would be $956.1 million in IDA debt service. If all IDA-only countries would benefit, the costs would be
$1.1 billion, and if all IDA countries (including blends and gap countries as well as IDA19 graduates) are included
the amount increases to $3.6 billion (including principal, interest and charges). If IBRD debt service to these
countries is included the amount increases to $3.8 billion. 13 In the wake of COVID-19, balances in the CCRT along with new contributions will enable support to a group of
29 CCRT eligible IDA-only countries for an initial period of six months. These grants are intended to help them
channel more of their scarce financial resources towards vital emergency medical and other relief efforts.
July 7, 2020
- 11 -
donor contributions in IDA19 would allow to increase IDA19 by approximately $6.6 billion.
Additionally, providing resources directly to IDA’s balance sheet ensures a robust allocation
framework, particularly providing increased resources for FCS and other grant recipients whose
debt service is small, and hence these would otherwise benefit less from trust fund financing.
Figure 10. Estimated debt service to IDA for FY21, by country group and new IDA funding
($ billion)
25. If donors commit substantial resources, the World Bank would be ready to set up the
trust fund along parameters agreed to by the donor community. Given the scarcity of
resources and competing needs, it would be important to have a firm commitment from donors to
provide a minimum threshold of funding, otherwise there is a risk that the fund be set up but not
have sufficient funding to fulfill its mandate and lead to further aid fragmentation.
B. Exploring ways to provide additional Short-Term Financing to IDA Countries
26. In order to provide more upfront financing for IDA countries, IDA is also exploring
possible ways to use temporarily available capital headroom to make relatively short-term
(i.e. on terms similar to IBRD’s) loans to IDA countries to contribute to their short-term
financing needs for social, health or economic spending, and provide a complementary
instrument to the transparency agenda of the Sustainable Development Finance Policy. The
objective of such support would be to help IDA-eligible countries enhance their fiscal space
diminished as a result of external shocks caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, preferably in a way
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0 IMF CCRT (27 of 29 countries)
IDA-only countries
All IDA countries (excl. Mongolia and Moldova & IBRD DS)
All IDA countries (incl. Mongolia & Moldova & IBRD DS)
Grants
($9.7 + ~
1.4)
IDA
New
Fin
an
cin
g
$4
1 b
illi
on
*
Note: New IDA funding for FY21 includes approximately $5 billion of resources
recommitted from cancellations of projects. These could be both grants or credits and
cancellations amounts are yet to be confirmed, but are assumed to be in proportion to
overall IDA19 funding (i.e. ~ 1.4 bln).
July 7, 2020
- 12 -
that also addresses their longer-term debt-related vulnerabilities. Options will be further discussed
with IDA’s shareholders at the 2020 Annual Meetings of the World Bank and IMF.
V. Conclusions
27. The paper provides further details and analysis on the obstacles to suspending debt
repayments to IDA/IBRD and on the negative impact on financial sustainability. It reaffirms
the conclusion of the joint MDB statement that allowing a suspension of debt service repayments
to the World Bank could reduce financial benefits to IDA countries by undermining the Bank’s
ability to provide timely, affordable and sizeable positive financial flows. The risk of erosion of
the WBG’s rating if it were to participate in a debt service suspension is significant – and this risk
is particularly salient for IDA, as a new issuer in the capital market in the midst of a considerable
scale-up in funding. Such an erosion would undermine the World Bank’s key role in crises, that of
maximizing financial capacity. It would also lead to higher funding costs that in and of themselves
significantly outweigh the benefit to clients of such a debt service suspension, magnified by the
fact that, for most IDA clients, debt service is minimal precisely because of IDA’s concessional
nature and built-in grants.
28. The World Bank and other MDBs are providing significant new financing to our
client countries to help them respond to the COVID-19 crisis. The paper provides
supplementary data on the important role that the World Bank and other MDBs play, to
provide steady flows of concessional financing for countries, especially when they face shocks.
Providing on average $11 of new financing for each $1 of debt service, the WB value proposition
needs to be protected. IDA’s support to the poorest already builds a large level of grants into its
financing, and the grant allocation system which anticipates debt distress and adjusts grant shares
accordingly up front, hence, has built-in debt relief through its high levels of concessionality.
Accelerated encashment of contributions by IDA Partners would help alleviate pressure on IDA
in implementing the significant front-loading of its financing to client countries. In addition, direct
contributions to IDA is an option that would strengthen IDA, enable it to leverage scarce aid
resources, and provide additional concessionality to IDA countries.
29. Beyond this, the paper refers to WBG efforts to explore options to provide additional
short-term liquidity to IDA countries that could increase financing over and above the
additional efforts already undertaken to increase commitments in the wake of the COVID-
19 crisis. The paper also explores donors providing resources to a trust fund to pay World Bank
debt service, with the objective of freeing up resources of IDA countries for them to finance urgent
expenditures. While the Bank would be ready to set this up should some donors request it,
shareholders would need to assess the opportunity costs of such option versus further
strengthening IDA directly which is an efficient platform for providing coordinated, focused
funding for IDA countries and can provide direct leverage of shareholder contributions.
July 7, 2020
13
Annex 1. PBA Commitments vs Debt Service to IDA & IBRD, by Country
Groupings for FY21
1
6
13
9
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
-
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
1x to 5x 5x to 10x 10x to 50x more than
50x
Nu
mb
er o
f co
un
trie
s
US
$ b
illi
on
s
New commitments compared debt service (FY21)
FCS
Grant Credit
Debt service # countries
5
6
3
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
-
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
1x to 5x 5x to 10x 10x to 50x more than
50x
Nu
mb
er o
f co
un
trie
s
US
$ b
illi
on
s
New commitments compared debt service (FY21)
Blends
Grant Credit
Debt service # countries
6
2
5
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
-
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
1x to 5x 5x to 10x 10x to 50x more than
50x
Nu
mb
er o
f co
un
trie
s
US
$ b
illi
on
sNew commitments compared debt service (FY21)
Gaps
Grant Credit
Debt service # countries
2
11
20
11
0
5
10
15
20
25
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1x to 5x 5x to 10x 10x to 50x more than
50x
Nu
mb
er o
f co
un
trie
s
US
$ b
illi
on
s
New commitments compared debt service (FY21)
IDA-only
Grant Credit
Debt service # countries
July 7, 2020
14
4 4
7
6
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
-
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
1x to 5x 5x to 10x 10x to 50x more than
50x
Nu
mb
er o
f co
un
trie
s
US
$ b
illi
on
s
New commitments compared debt service (FY21)
Small States
Grant Credit
Debt service # countries
13
19
28
11
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
-
2.5
5.0
7.5
10.0
1x to 5x 5x to 10x 10x to 50x more than
50x
Nu
mb
er o
f co
un
trie
s
US
$ b
illi
on
s
New commitments compared debt service (FY21)
All IDA
Grant Credit
Debt service # countries